The Hard Questions

I agree with what Michael Gerson says in his most recent Washington Post column in theory but, as Yogi Berra cautioned us, there is a difference between theory and practice. While I agree that we shouldn’t alienate all billion Muslims and that we need to accept refugees, I don’t think that the lines are as bright as he implies they are. And I certainly don’t think that appealing to shared values will be particularly fruitful. Let’s deal with that one first.

According to the most recent Pew survey of worldwide Muslim opinion:

  • Between 35% and 50% of Muslims believe that Islamic religious courts should prevail in family law cases including among non-Muslims. Shared value or not shared?
  • Between 2/3s and 90% of Muslims believe that it is impossible for an atheist to be a moral person. Shared value or not shared?
  • At least three quarters of Muslims believe that prostitution, homosexuality, suicide, extra-marital sex, drinking alcohol, abortion and euthanasia are immoral. Shared value or not shared?
  • Between 40% and 90% of Muslims think that women should obey their husbands. Shared value or not shared?
  • Between 3% and 40% of Muslims believe that suicide bombing of civilians in defense of Islam is justified. Shared value or not shared?
  • Between 22% and 79% of Muslims believe that religious leaders should have political influence. Shared value or not shared?

Of course we share some things because of our common humanity. If you prick us, do we not bleed? I doubt that the things we hold in common are enough to rally the world’s Muslims against violent radical Islam.

And then there’s the issue of refugees. Should we treat refugees, economic migrants, and welfare tourists differently? How do you distinguish among them? Should you?

One final word. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees. Did we do something wrong or did they bring the wrong with them? I’ve heard interviews with their mother frequently enough that I know what I believe. Admitting them to this country was an error.

You cannot address serious questions on the basis of airy generalizations. You’ve got to start asking the hard questions. Here’s one of the hardest. Is it better to prevent one terrorist from coming here or exclude ten legitimate refugees? A hundred? More? What sort of scrutiny is too severe and who decides?

13 comments… add one
  • ... Link

    Are the refugees planning on returning home under any conditions? If not, then they aren’t refugees, they’re immigrants, and should be treated as such.

  • And we’re back to the rectification of names. If the present crop of refugees are like previous cohorts only a very small percentage, single digits, will be accorded refugee status.

  • ... Link

    Has David Brooks vetted that Pew survey?

  • Guarneri Link

    1). Each of the dot points would horrify and elicit howls of scorn by a democrat politicians, except

    2). Their calculus is that these foreigners will vote their way.

    3). The notion that immigrants/refugees etc can be vetted is bizarre. We have no real and reliable records. Closet terrorists are taught how to lie. We are supposed to trust the same people who promised, after oh-so-careful analysis, that insurance premiums would go down $2500?? Really?? The intentional naïveté concerning the attitudes contained in those dot points is stunning.

    Theory? Practice?? How about raw cynicism.

  • TastyBits Link

    Syrian passports are issued by the Syrian government, and background checks would need to include Syrian government agencies. I would be interested in learning how a Syrian citizen can be vetted without the cooperation of the Syrian government. Since the Syrian government is headed by a guy the US is trying to overthrow and most likely murder, I suspect they are not going to be very cooperative.

    It is beyond bizarre, but our Bellman has said it thrice. Therefore, it must be true.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I don’t know, Dave might have buried the most jarring finding in that survey: “In the U.S., about eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) say that suicide bombing and similar acts targeting civilians are never justified.” So 19% are ticking time-bombs?

  • PD Shaw Link

    I wish they wouldn’t combine all of the answers. Here is the question:

    “Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

    American Muslims:
    Often Justified 1%
    Sometimes Justified 7%
    Rarely Justified 5%
    Never Justified 81%
    Don’t Know 6%

    I think 13% of American Muslims contemplate abhorrent beliefs in the defense of a religious belief that is un-American. (The 6% is totally American)

  • PD Shaw Link

    Percentage that believe suicide bombings or other attacks against civilians are often justified in defense of Islam:

    Palestinian Territory (18%)
    Afghanistan (18%)
    Egypt (11%)
    Bangladesh (9%)
    Tunisia (5%)
    Morocco (5%)

    I assume a lot of this is about Israel and the tacit support for the Re-Reconquista of Islamic land. It’s a bit depressing that so-called moderate or modernizing states still find it useful to buy some cheap legitimacy by promoting anti-Israeli sentiments that have little relevance or cost to them. But the situation in Bangladesh appears to inexplicably becoming more religiously radicalized.

  • I don’t think it’s at all inexplicable. The Saudis have spent billions over decades building, staffing, and supporting Salafist mosques all over the world.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Well, it is strange if you compare Bangladesh with Pakistan, where only 4% believe suicide attacks are often justified and the extent of Saudi influence is much stronger.

    It appears that Islamic majority countries can secularize and modernize their institutions and economies, but if they become corrupt or ineffective as I believe Bangladesh may have, an Islamist voice appears from out-of-nowhere to promise a religious alternative that resonates with a significant portion of the people.

  • if they become corrupt or ineffective as I believe Bangladesh may have, an Islamist voice appears from out-of-nowhere to promise a religious alternative

    The long term trend has been for Islam to become a religion of the countryside and the urban poor. That wasn’t always the case but modernity has hit urban intellectual Islam pretty hard. There’s a lengthy passage from Ernest Gellner’s book The Sword, the Plough, and the Book that discusses this that I’ve got quoted around here somewhere.

    Ah, yes. More than ten years ago but still relevant.

  • steve Link

    Intersting. My evangelical family would agree with most of those values. All except the sharia and suicide bombing, though they believed the bombing of abortion clinics was justified.

    What level of risk do we accept? I would suggest that we not make zero risk our goal. That is not how we live. Not how we do much of anything else. There really aren’t all that many people who will want to come here as refugees just so they can be terrorists. Set some rigorous standards, then let people in.

    Steve

  • CStanley Link

    Much of the importance of the values questions depends on whether or not the respondent seeks to have the values enforced by law, and whether the culture allows room for the practice of those conservative values without the necessity of living a cloistered existence.

    The justification of suicide bombing or other acts of terrorism stands apart from that, and should be the biggest deal breaker for allowing refugees or economic migrants.

Leave a Comment